But here is another classic example of someone getting it totally wrong. How can a man who is one of the last of the true Thomists so thorough reject all reason and logic?
First he claims that "The ecumenical council called by Pope John XXIII is the central event in the recent history of the Catholic Church." Then he claims that it would be the post hoc ergo propter hoc error to conclude that there was any causal relationship between the unexpected and total collapse of the Catholic Church and what he calls "the central event in the recent history of the Catholic Church." Come on -- it was total coincidence? He wants to blame the "sexual revolution"? The Church was just a victim?
I went round and round with another poster the other day about this topic. Here we see it in action again from another one of the pope's apologists (the last one was Fr. Neuhaus). Vatican II happened. It was the biggest event to hit the Church for 400 years. The Church collapsed in virtually every area of spiritual life. These events have no causal relationship. And if you'll believe that story, then I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Neuhaus and McInerny are not stupid guys. What makes them say these things that any rational person would reject outright as preposterous? It's clear that they have an agenda, and they are willing to fudge the facts to defend it. They have a vested stake in defending the status quo, but it's rather like defending the captain of the Titanic. All the evidence is against you.
No, they're not. But I'm beginning to wonder if you are.
The Church has GROWN since Vatican II. In most areas, like my own parish, you have to shoehorn people into the pews at almost every Mass.
You seem to think that Catholics, who spend 6 and 3/4 days per week NOT at a Catholic Church, aren't influenced by cultural trends.
It's a guaranteed certainty that, with or without Vatican II, the percentage of Catholics who attend Mass weekly would be EXACTLY where it is today.
Or then again, could it be that the Last Supper and its aftermath simply provided the ideal opportunity for Jesus' enemies to hatch what they had been planning for some time? Could it be that their evil had been incubating for years and they took their opportunity when the traitor saw an opportune moment? I wonder.
Clue: the sort of errors which have become rampant in the Church in the last 40 years were being condemned by Pius X at the turn of the 20th century, in his encyclical on modernism. This great Pope thought them to be of sufficient danger 60 years before VII to warrant a formal encyclical.
I'd have to watch the tape again but some visionary said that Mary said that Satan had 100 years to do his best and I think he's had it.
The license taken by Catholics in the name of VII and the results I see around me of Catholics who know their faith is just proof to me that Jesus words are true and the gates of hell haven't and never shall prevail against the Body of Christ on earth. The Church will emerge stronger and more filled with faith than ever. Jesus never said it would be easy but He is with us even until the end of the world and my faith in Jesus Christ and the Church he founded does not waver.
As for your suggestion that the church has "collapsed" spiritually, I would beg to disagree. The post concilliar church has brought in some outstanding converts who have contributed MUCH to the spirituality of the church.
God acts in His own ways. To ridicule the Second Council is, in a sense, to challenge God's handiwork through His church.
The entire article tells me one thing in particular. The culture of Catholic dissent has its roots way before Vatican II. It sprung from the giddy anticipation of the Catholic Theologians and some priests (prolly bishops, too) who were convinced that the birth control debate would go in their favor. When it didn't, those same Catholics ignored the pope/magisterium and basically told the laity that they could use their own consciences to decide what to do. Thing is, it only made sense to think "why stop there?"
I firmly believe with all my heart and soul that whether Vat II happened or not, attendance at Mass would be the same as we see today. We've succumbed to the secular culture.
Don't sweat it.